Douglas A. Macgregor's Blog, page 18

Air Force Global Strike chief Bussiere to retire

WASHINGTON — The head of Air Force Global Strike Command said that he will seek retirement, according to a late Tuesday social media post. 

In a post on Facebook published by AFGSC, Gen. Thomas Bussiere said that he will “request retirement from the United States Air Force for personal and family reasons.” A change of command ceremony for AFGSC is scheduled for Oct. 17, according to a spokesperson for the command, at which point Bussiere would be expected to depart from his current role.

“Serving alongside the exceptional men and women of our Air Force has been the privilege of a lifetime. I’m especially proud of the Warrior Airmen of Air Force Global Strike Command and everything we’ve accomplished together,” Bussiere said. 

Bussiere earlier this year appeared to have a longer future in the Air Force after he was selected in July to serve as its No. 2 officer following the ouster of former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife. But after no movement on his nomination, Aviation Week reported in September it had been pulled by the Trump administration. 

As Breaking Defense previously reported, former Air Combat Command chief Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach quickly emerged as a frontrunner to replace Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, who announced his surprise retirement in August. Bussiere at that time was seen as a leading contender for the chief of staff job too, and a highly unusual social media campaign cropped up to boost the general for the job over Wilsbach.

The campaigning was not successful: On Monday, the Senate formally received Wilsbach’s nomination to serve as Air Force Chief of Staff. The move likely foreclosed one of the only avenues forward for Bussiere as a four-star general, as his successor, Lt. Gen. Stephen Davis, has already been confirmed by the Senate. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also been vocal about cutting the number of top brass. 

“I am deeply honored to have been nominated for Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and profoundly grateful for the trust and confidence placed in me by the President,” Bussiere said in the Facebook post. 

After assuming his current post in December 2022, Bussiere oversaw the Air Force’s nuclear deterrent and strategic assets like bombers. He formerly achieved the rating of a command pilot after logging thousands of hours on aircraft like the F-15 Eagle, B-2 Spirit and F-22 Raptor, according to his service biography and held numerous roles including as commander of the Eighth Air Force. He joined the Air Force in 1985 via the ROTC program at Norwich University. 

The general was a strong advocate for modernization efforts underway across the Air Force, particularly for its aging bomber fleet. While Bussiere in his current post stewarded so-far successful programs like the B-21 Raider, his portfolio also included flagging efforts like the LGM-35A Sentinel, which he revealed will require new missile silos.

“While I’m stepping away from active duty, my commitment to service remains. I look forward to finding new ways to support our Air Force, our national defense, and the incredible people who make it all possible,” Bussiere said in the Facebook post, thanking “all who have supported me through this journey.”

Army says it’s mitigated ‘critical’ cybersecurity deficiencies in early NGC2 prototype

WASHINGTON — The US Army says it has mitigated several cybersecurity risks discovered in an early iteration of its nascent Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) platform, as detailed in a blunt memo obtained by Breaking Defense.

Penned on Sept. 5 and signed by Army Chief Information Office Chief Technology Officer Gabriele Chiulli, the document said the NGC2 platform “in its current state, exhibits critical deficiencies in fundamental security controls, processes, and governance.”

“These issues collectively create a significant risk to data, mission operations, and personnel by rendering the system vulnerable to insider threats, external attacks, and data spillage,” the document said. Chiulli wrote at the time that the Army “lack[s] the visibility and controls necessary to ensure the security and integrity of the platform. There seems to be a rush to get capabilities into the system without actual oversight or process to do it, putting greater risk as this system further increases this risk.”

But Army officials told Breaking Defense that in the three-plus weeks since the document was written and subsequently circulated within industry, the problems have been addressed.

“The issues were mitigated immediately,” Army Chief Information Officer Leonel Garciga said in a statement. He added that the “streamlined cyber security processes were able to quickly identify and assist the program office and vendor in triaging cyber security vulnerabilities and put mitigations in place.”

In a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Jeth Rey, deputy chief of staff at the Army’s G-6 which deals with Army cybersecurity and networks, argued that finding those early deficiencies early was all part of the service’s intended process, and that efforts were undertaken to correct them.

“We have to bake in cybersecurity early in the process and I think this is what we did,” Rey said in a Sept. 25 interview. “This is a new capability coming in and we found a risk and we mitigated it right out the gate. I think it’s a good news story for us going forward. If we continue to look at things in that manner and our processes work, I’m happy.”

He noted that the Army is still in the experimentation phase and moving to prototype, continuing to improving processes.

‘Very High Risk’ Of Adversary Access

NGC2 is the service’s number one modernization priority and is meant to provide commanders and units a new approach to manage information, data, and command and control with agile and software-based architectures. It is a so-called clean slate approach, meaning it was built from the ground up as opposed to previous modernization efforts to bolt on new capabilities to legacy architectures and systems.

In July, the Army awarded nearly $100 million to Anduril and a team of vendors to develop a prototype of the system, scaling to the entire division level at Project Convergence Capstone 6 this summer with the 4th Infantry Division. A prototype was tested at last year’s event at the battalion level. Chiulli’s document doesn’t say what NGC2 platform he was referring to, and Anduril referred Breaking Defense’s questions regarding the vulnerabilities to the Army. More recently, Lockheed Martin and its team also recently scored a contract to develop an integrated data layer with 25th Infantry Division.

As the Army is looking to scale Anduril’s prototype up to the entire division level, 4th ID has begun a series of so-called sprint events between now and Project Convergence to incrementally add capability. These events are called the Ivy Sting series.

Chiulli’s memo came 10 days before the first event. At the time, it listed a host of concerns, the “cumulative effect” of which was that NGC2 appeared more like a “black box” in which the service couldn’t control which users do or see what on the network.

“The lack of governance means there is no one person or entity accountable for accepting this risk on behalf of the Army,” it states. “Given the current security posture of the platform and hosted 3rd party applications the likelihood of an adversary gaining persistent undetectable access to the platform requires the system to be treated as very high risk.”

The issues listed include lack of access control and accountability, unverified and vulnerable codebase for third-party applications, critical gaps in governance and basic security hygiene and lack of data governance.

The first deficiency highlighted noted the system had no Role-Based Access Control, which means once a user is granted access, they would have unrestricted access to all applications and all data — anathema to the Pentagon’s broader zero trust principles. The memo described this as a critical security failure that could lead to potential access and misuse of classified information.

Regarding third-party applications, the memo notes the Palantir Federal Cloud Service that hosts the apps in a container hosting methodology has not been assessed by the Army or an Army CIO policy supporting the function of contractor owned/contractor operated pipeline. None of the apps had been subject to routine web-application security scanning.

The memo alleged that the system is operating with known, unmitigated vulnerabilities, akin to deploying a weapon system with known defects. With no clear mission owner to take responsibility for the system’s operational security, the memo warned security will fall through the cracks.

The Army officials didn’t say exactly how or when each purported deficiency was addressed, but at Ivy Sting on Sept. 15, NGC2 performed well, according to Garciga. He noted that the streamlined cyber security processes allowed Ivy Sting 1 to “move forward without delay.”

Maj. Sean Minton, an Army spokesperson, said broadly, “The Army is undergoing a once-in-a-generation transformation to provide our Soldiers the capabilities they need swiftly.

“As demonstrated in this case, our proactive cybersecurity posture is designed to identify risk and mitigate it while minimizing effects on the force,” he said.

SASC Dems skeptical of Golden Dome price, feasibility

WASHINGTON — Following a closed-door briefing today, some Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are raising concerns about the cost and technical feasibility of the Golden Dome missile shield — although one Republican lawmaker said the $175 billion cost estimate previously given by President Donald Trump has stayed steady.

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director for the Golden Dome, held a classified briefing today with SASC members on the initial architecture for the sprawling, ambitious system  — his first interaction with the committee since being tapped to lead the effort in May. While members were broadly positive about Guetlein’s leadership of the program and the flow of information now coming from the Pentagon, several Democrats coming out of the meeting voiced continued anxieties about whether the project is a wise use of taxpayer funding.

Arizona Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy fighter pilot who is the ranking Democrat on SASC’s tactical air and land subcommittee, said he continues to have “reservations” about the program, as the system will need to prove a high rate of reliability just to meet the basic requirements.

“This is an incredibly expensive system. It’s complicated. The physics are really hard, and you’ve got to build something with very high reliability to be effective, and having some experience at this stuff, I’m very skeptical,” he said. “We need a lot more information before we make decisions to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said his anxieties on the program’s cost, timeline and feasibility were not new, noting that independent experts have put out their own estimates that are significantly longer and more expensive than the Pentagon’s projections.

“My impression is that we are receiving more information [from the Pentagon], but still additional facts are absolutely necessary to assess the Golden Dome completely and accurately,” he said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va, said the program is progressing but Guetlein faced “vigorous and challenging” questions, particularly about the program’s price tag.

“I think everybody on both sides of the aisle is still really trying to get their head around that, whether the numbers that have been publicly floated are sufficient,” he said.

Few details have emerged about Golden Dome apart from the vision bestowed by the president earlier this year — that of a comprehensive homeland defense system capable of intercepting cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles, which would be operational by the end of the Trump administration. Besides a $25 billion down payment for the effort made in the reconciliation bill, a budget plan for the program has not been made public — although there are signs that industry will have to pony up internal research funding in order to take part.

In a statement, a Pentagon official said that the department met its deadline to develop an initial architecture, which is currently under review.

“No additional information is available at this time, keeping operational security top of mind,” the official stated. “We continue doing our part to meet the President’s vision as Golden Dome for America remains a strategic imperative to protect our Homeland.”

Lawmakers repeatedly declined to share specifics about the timeline, cost and technologies associated with the Golden Dome effort gleaned from today’s briefing, noting its classification. But asked whether the cost estimate for the effort still coincides with the $175 billion figure shared by Trump, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., who leads SASC’s tactical air and land subcommittee, responded that “it does.”

Not all lawmakers raised concerns with the program’s cost. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Ala., said he pressed Guetlein on the testing schedule for Golden Dome. Sullivan wanted to see a marked departure in approach from the Missile Defense Agency, which he said had a “risk averse culture” that relies predominantly on simulated tests rather than live demonstrations.

“I was very, very satisfied with his answer. I think their goal, and it’s a big one, is to be super aggressive on live testing, real testing, not just simulations,” he said, adding that SASC’s version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill includes a live fire requirement for Golden Dome.  “We say at least once a year; I think he’s going to be way more aggressive than that.”

With munitions and CCA in mind, small engines make a big show at AFA

WASHINGTON — While some of the prime real estate on the show floor at the Air and Space Forces Association conference this year may have been dominated by large unmanned aerial vehicles, some more compact components had an outsized presence: small engines destined for more attritable systems.

“It’s clear there’s some sort of demand signal,” Byron Callan, managing director at Capital Alpha Partners, said in an interview with Breaking Defense about the raft of companies making a play for smaller engines at AFA and elsewhere. “It did strike me.”

From startups to established primes, companies used the AFA conference this year to show off their wares suited to the lower-end engine space, which could potentially be used for Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones, cruise missiles or other air vehicles that would provide an affordable mass of munitions. 

Among those at AFA, Honeywell, for example, unveiled a new 1,600-pound thrust engine dubbed the HON1600, adding another powerplant to the company’s CCA offerings alongside its existing, higher-thrust F124. TJ Pope, Honeywell’s senior director for engines strategy, said in an interview at the show that the company’s approach is “low risk,” in part by leveraging extensive experience manufacturing auxiliary power units, whose supply chain and production facilities can be repurposed for producing small engines.

FULL COVERAGE: AFA 2025

Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of defense giant RTX, said in a press release published during AFA that it’s pursuing “a new family of engines” that can scale from 500 to 1,800 pounds of thrust. 

Rolls-Royce, for its part, displayed the Orpheus engine, a family of powerplants jointly under development with the UK’s Ministry of Defense.

“The Orpheus family is targeting multiple potential future opportunities, one of which is the attritable CCA market,” OrpheusWorks Program Manager Emma Russell told Breaking Defense in an interview on the show floor. Highlighting roughly 120 test events and 40 hours of engine run time, Russell said the company has “great knowledge” of the Orpheus design, which is “really targeting a different supply chain [compared] to what Rolls Royce is used to using” to achieve “a route to low cost production.”

Smaller firms had their say too, including JetCat Defense, a joint venture between a German company and an American arm of an Israeli firm. It brought along its new P420 and P850 powerplants, which the company says provide 100 and 200 pounds of thrust, respectively. 

Startup BeeHive Industries also announced at the show that its 200 pound-thrust Frenzy engine on contract with the US Air Force hit development milestones and plans to begin flight testing “early in 2026.” 

CCA Design Uncertainties 

While demand for more affordable powerplants for munitions is high, firms are also charging ahead with offerings without full information about a major incentive driver: the CCA program.

The Air Force has chosen two larger airframes for its first increment of the program, but has not said whether it would emphasize low-end, high-end or systems in between for a next round of CCA contracts. It has moved ahead with a request for proposals for engines in the lower thrust range, though one service official said that RFP is aimed at propping up a dormant segment of the market to give the government more options. (The Navy will likely be another significant buyer of CCA and recently issued contracts for its own drone wingman program, as Breaking Defense previously reported, though those awards are only for “conceptual designs.”)

The exact details of what the Air Force is asking of industry, at least in the public domain, is difficult to pin down, since the service appears to be withholding some information due to security concerns. The Air Force did not respond to Breaking Defense’s query by press time when asked what has been communicated to industry. 

The Air Force did previously make one industry survey public, which was roughly in the medium-thrust class domain: a request for information on engines in a thrust range of 3,000 to 8,000 pounds issued in late 2023. 

One industry source, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive details, said what the Air Force has released in the medium class of thrust “fits in the envelope of what you’ve seen before.” Still, the service has not released an RFP for an engine in that range, they said, much less issued requirements for an air vehicle. 

So far, details are more readily available for the Air Force’s first CCA round, or “increment,” where Anduril and General Atomics are facing off. According to Aviation Week, Anduril’s CCA offering will fly with a Williams International FJ44-4 engine that features 3,600 pounds of thrust. General Atomics has not disclosed the powerplant for its CCA bid, but has said the aircraft is compatible with multiple engines.  

A full-sized model of General Atomics’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (top) and Anduril’s (bottom) on display at AFA 2024 on Sept. 20, 2024. (Breaking Defense photos)

RELATED: RTX, Shield AI picked to give Collaborative Combat Aircraft autonomous capabilities

Callan pointed out that part of the reason for the uncertainty, beyond enduring questions about how CCA will be used operationally, may have to do with leadership changes at the Air Force. Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach has only now been nominated to serve as the next Air Force chief of staff, and civilian leaders like Air Force Secretary Troy Meink have only been in their roles for a few months. 

“I still think we’re kind of in a transition period,” Callan said, adding that a “better line of sight” may come in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2027 budget. 

A key challenge for industry too is manufacturing engines that are not necessarily built to last for what would be more attritable aircraft, contrary to aerospace engineers’ traditional task of designing engines with long lifespans and high tolerances. 

“Shifting that paradigm is certainly not an easy thing to do,” Honeywell’s Pope said, pointing to innovations like additive manufacturing and tradeoffs in cooling and lifespan, since the engines aren’t meant to operate as long. When it comes to smaller CCA engines, “my assumption is that it’s going to be a two digit number from a life cycle standpoint,” he added, referring to the number of flight hours the engine is expected to log.

For engines that are “something in the middle” between being expendable and lasting thousands of hours, “that’s a completely new approach, or a combination of approaches,” Richard Aboulafia, managing director at AeroDynamic Advisory, said in an interview with Breaking Defense. 

“I would think that the incumbents” — some of whom can repurpose commercial offerings for military applications — “still have the advantage,” Aboulafia observed. “Turbines are not a space that’s easily disrupted with new technology. But on the other hand, maybe this is one of those areas where a startup could take a totally clean sheet approach.”

Market Considerations And ‘Prudent Bets’

The budding entrants hoping to supply lower-thrust engines join a field that has become increasingly crowded over the past year, featuring teamups like one consisting of GE Aerospace and Kratos. Firms making a foray into smaller engines will further go toe-to-toe with established providers like Williams International, which supplies engines for the Tomahawk missile among other systems. 

Still, analysts told Breaking Defense there will likely be a good amount of opportunity for these companies to chase.

“This is certainly a growth market. It’s gonna take awhile to get there, but you could easily see hundreds of air vehicles,” some with potentially different sizes and requirements, “built per year in this market sometime in the early 2030s,” Aboulafia said. 

“The bets” companies are making to invest in engine development “aren’t necessarily major ones,” Callan said. “I’d call them prudent bets.” 

A rendering of the GEK1500. (GE and Kratos image)

A global ramp up in defense spending also carries some tension for companies, who have shown they’re eager to do CCA business abroad. Aboulafia and Callan both pointed out that it’s likely foreign buyers may want to have some sovereign control over their programs, including by having key systems manufactured within their borders.

RELATED: Europe is pouring money into defense. Can US firms reap the reward amid trans-Atlantic tension?

“I generally believe Europeans are going to buy European,” Callan said as an example. “For now, I think the US companies, their largest market is gonna be the US,” he continued, pointing to the added possibility of “multidomestic” manufacturing footprints. 

Asked whether the market for smaller engines is already becoming oversaturated, Callan said it’s “just too soon to tell.” Still, he said, “The one thing I would be skeptical of is, it’s gonna be winner-take-all” — a philosophy the Pentagon has also tried to instill in its CCA programs.

“There’s almost universal consensus that CCA are the future of air combat, but there is very little consensus about what they look like,” Aboulafia said, noting the “irresistible” allure of providing powerplants for potentially thousands of systems. “So will there be winners and losers? Absolutely. But you can’t ignore this market.”

Space Force declares ATLAS space domain awareness software ‘operational’

WASHINGTON — The Space Force announced today that its software-centric program for managing, processing and disseminating space monitoring data, the Advanced Tracking and Launch Analysis System (ATLAS), has been accepted as “operational.”

The move paves the way for the service to finally rid itself of its dysfunctional 1980s-era computer system called the Space Defense Operations Center (SPADOC), which as been used to keep tabs on satellites, spacecraft and dangerous space junk even after nearly two decades of failed replacement efforts.

Operational acceptance of ATLAS delivers the “the key capabilities [needed] to not be reliant on the SPADOC system,” Shannon Pallone, program executive officer of Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, and Space Intelligence (BMC3I) at the service’s primary acquisition unit, Space Systems Command, told Breaking Defense on Sept. 16.

ATLAS’s official greenlight comes after a nearly year-long trial period for the software at Space Operations Command’s Mission Delta 2, headquartered at Vandenberg SFB, Calif.

Pallone, speaking in an exclusive interview during the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance conference in Hawaii, explained that since the trial began delta operators successfully have been using the system to create actual tracking data for space objects.

“[O]n the ops floor, it’s generating a catalog — it’s publishing data to Space-track.org They’re using that as a primary system,” she said.

SPADOC originally came online in the 1980s and was by 2017 an “old clunker” that wasn’t fit for space warfighting functions, according to then-head of Air Force Space Command Gen. Jay Raymond, who went on to lead the Space Force.

The ATLAS project, initiated in 2018 and contracted to L3Harris, was designed as part of a larger Space Force effort to replace and improve upon the infamously flawed Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) Mission System (JMS). The JMS program began in 2009 to replace SPADOC, but after a decade of effort and not quite $1 billion in spending it was killed in 2018.

The Space Force originally planned for ATLAS to become operational in 2022, but the program has been bedeviled by technical issues and schedule delays — to the point where then-Air Force Space Acquisition Executive Frank Calvelli in 2023 dubbed it one of the Space Force’s three most troubled programs.

The decommissioning of SPADOC, Pallone said, will be a game-changing achievement.

“Maybe that’s when I’m just like: ‘I retire’,” she joked. “It’ll be a major coup.”

A Space Operations Command spokesperson told Breaking Defense today that at the moment there isn’t a set timeframe for SPADOC to be shut down.

Pallone stressed that ATLAS’s operational acceptance is a first step to improving the Space Force’s ability to detect, track, and characterize objects in space in a precise enough way to allow persistent “eyes” on adversary satellites.

“That’s really just the start of getting after where we need to go in space domain awareness as a mission,” she said. “I’m in a new baseline, and now I can start to do some really exciting things with that, and I can start to actually get after gaps instead of getting after modernizing. … I want to get out of modernization into closing gaps, and this is going to let us do that.”

EXCLUSIVE: SECNAV consolidating Navy policy, foreign affairs staff into new role

WASHINGTON — Navy Secretary John Phelan is consolidating planning authorities for the service’s future fleet, budget development and international affairs objectives into a new secretariat-level position known as the chief of naval policy (CPOL), according to a memorandum signed by Phelan, and obtained by Breaking Defense.

Under the new guidance, a number of existing offices and roles will be “integrated” into the new office, which reports to Phelan. In addition, certain State Department advisors for the chief of naval operations and the Marine Corps commandant will be disestablished.

“The forward presence that has been a hallmark of Navy and Marine Corps operations since their founding has also led to, and requires, close cooperative relationships with allies and partners to enable key missions in support of core American interests,” the memo, dated Sept. 19, states. “Accordingly, ensuring the coordinated management of DON international affairs and security cooperation activities is essential to carrying out my statutory responsibilities.”

The new CPOL position, which will oversee a similarly named office, will replace what was formerly known as the deputy undersecretary of the Navy for policy. It was not immediately clear who currently holds that position. A Navy website that would usually publish information about the office was marked “under construction” at the time of publication.

A spokeswoman for Phelan told Breaking Defense the memo aligns the Department of the Navy’s functions to how they are handled in the other military services.

“This alignment not only fosters closer coordination between naval operations, shipbuilding priorities and broader defense and foreign policy objectives but also transforms guidance into actionable plans that adapt to the ever-changing security landscape. By optimizing resource allocation, we position ourselves for successful fleet modernization and build robust international partnerships that will enhance our global maritime presence,” said Lt. Cmdr. Courtney Williams.

Williams’ statement did not directly address a question about who would serve as the CPOL.

The memorandum directs the new senior civilian to lead a “realignment” of the Navy’s policy and foreign affairs apparatuses “with a view toward eliminating redundancies … while ensuring leaders across the DON speak with one voice.”

“The CPOL shall serve as the principal civilian advisor on defense strategy and policy, naval strategy, international affairs, security cooperation, naval force posture (including related international agreements and arrangements), policy implications of emerging naval capabilities and concepts, military readiness and naval force design,” according to the memo.

The CPOL will report directly to Phelan and have jurisdiction over a vast number of functions, including formulating service-wide strategic plans and foreign policy objectives and managing the budget development and execution in coordination with the comptroller. The CPOL will also serve as the “lead for coordination” of the Navy and Marine Corps’ input to any policy questions from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

“The civilian executive assistants, staff assistants, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters Marine Corps must receive concurrence from the CPOL before submitting formal DON responses to OUSW (P) on any matter,” according to the memo.

The CPOL will also have jurisdiction over industrial base issues. In coordination with the service acquisition executive, the senior civilian will provide oversight of security cooperation efforts, technology transfer and arms control agreement and implementation.

As part of establishing the new office, Phelan is also directing that several offices be “integrated” under the “authority, supervision and direction” of the CPOL, including the Navy International Programs Office; Navy International Affairs and Security Cooperation; Navy Attaché Affairs; USMC International Affairs Branch; and the USMC Foreign Liaison.

“In addition, the Department of State Policy Advisors to the CNO and CMC are hereby disestablished,” the memo said. “The realigned [Office of Naval Policy] described above shall provide direct support to SECNAV, CNO and CMC on all matters relating to international affairs, security cooperation, engagement with partners and allies and attaché affairs.”

The memo largely aligns with the broader goals of consolidation of the Pentagon’s sprawling staffs pushed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth since the start of the second Trump administration. Breaking Defense reported earlier this month Phelan had taken a number of actions to reduce the number of offices and staff overseeing the Navy’s autonomous and robotic programs.

Bryan Clark, a retired Navy submariner and fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the memo’s directives address “specific areas where the [Department of the Navy] had a disjointed management structure.”

The most important change is how the services interact with the State Department and conduct diplomatic engagements, Clark said. Although service chiefs will frequently discuss foreign military sales with their counterparts, the staff who execute the process work for a number of other offices.

“This change rationalizes the chains of command for these offices and should help make the CNO and CMC’s jobs easier. They will still get asked about FMS, etc. but the CPOL and that chain of command will be responsible for working the processes,” he said.

Clark also said that historically the SECNAV’s office would weigh in on select discussions between the policy shops within the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, resulting in “incoherent or delayed DON responses to tasking. The SECNAV’s staff should lead policy decisions and interactions with [OSD]. This memo fixes that problem,” he said.

Updated 10/1/2025 at 7:35 am ET with comments from a spokeswoman for Navy Secretary John Phelan.

Army reignites self-propelled howitzer competition after ATI pause

WASHINGTON — After months of pauses and uncertainty, the Army released a request for proposal for its self-propelled howitzer competition, indicating that the service is prepared to launch forward with its mission to modernize its field artillery portfolio. 

“Over the past 8 months, the US Army has been re-evaluating its objectives for modernization and adjusting those objectives to best support the new Army Transformation Initiative (ATI) strategy. Comprehensive analysis has confirmed the importance of 155mm self-propelled artillery system-of-systems to the Army,” read the request for proposal posted Monday. “Consequently, the US Army is considering opportunities to rapidly conduct soldier experimentation.” 

After scrapping development of its Extended Range Cannon Artillery platform, Army officials embarked on a world tour last year searching for existing self-propelled howitzers. After seeing the offering of five companies — BAE Systems, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, Hanwha and Rheinmetall — the service announced it was launching a competition to pick an existing platform.

The competition was planned to kick off with the release of a Phase I request for proposal in mid-February, Breaking Defense reported in January. However, it was one of the programs put on hold as a result of ATI. Monday’s RFI is the first document that the service has published in regards to the long-awaited competition since it was paused earlier this year.

The RFI, authored by the Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems, called on vendors to offer solutions that will “likely involve temporarily” providing self-propelled howitzer systems to brigades participating in the Army’s Transformation in Contact (TiC) initiative — the service’s push to rapidly test new equipment with units both inside the US and abroad to understand how that technology will operate in real-world environments. 

Though the Army said “the scope and organization of a soldier experiment for self-propelled artillery is still being defined,” the RFI suggests that the service is primarily looking for US-made and -manufactured solutions. 

For example, the RFI directs respondents to “provide a summary of your current supply chain and current suppliers used in the USA, including a map of major supplier locations. Highlight major supplier locations outside of the USA.” 

“If not currently produced in the USA, describe how you would onshore production of the proposed system to the USA, including barrel production. Identify current US manufacturing facilities and sources of supply,” it added. 

The RFI goes on to ask industry how long it would take to deliver one US-produced self-propelled howitzer, and how long for the delivery of six.

One industry source who has been closely following the program as a potential competitor raised his eyebrows at parts of the RFI, including its tight timeline, especially amid foreign conflicts in which the artillery could be put to real-world use.

“We are not just sitting around on platforms. … I sell those,” the source said. “Do [companies] do a demo or do [they] supply a war in Ukraine or Israel?”

The source continued that it takes about two years to produce something like a howitzer, given the long lead times on parts and forging the barrel. Out of the five companies who participated in last year’s roadshow, several do not currently produce their platforms exclusively in the US.

Despite those concerns, the RFI and associated questions in it do not mean the Army will ultimately require interested companies to hand over six howitzers within the next couple of months for a demo. That number and timeframe could shift based on responses that are due back to the Army by Oct. 10.

“This RFI is for informational purposes only,” the Army document said. “The information in this notice is subject to change and is not binding on the USG.”

.

.

.

Forge ahead with the Sentinel ICBM, but consider making it mobile

This month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released findings on the Air Force’s troubled transition from the aging, silo-based Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to its far more advanced Sentinel replacement. We believe that the GAO report makes it evident that relying entirely on the current plan for silo-based ICBMs could pose grave risks that leave a future president with a far too-small ICBM force when the adversaries’ combined ICBMs have swelled.

The ICBM leg of the nuclear tried underwrites America’s global military posture. It is the central deterrent, which allows Washington to project conventional power abroad without suffering a crippling nuclear attack at home. But the US ICBM force is decades past its programmed lifespan, and the next-gen Sentinel system continues to shock elected officials with its soaring cost.

Given that the Air Force now says Sentinel will “predominantly” need new silos after years of saying the existing infrastructure will work for the new missile, now is the time for US officials to take a serious look at a road-mobile version of the ICBM.

At the core of Sentinel’s 81 percent cost overrun, on an initial estimate of $78 billion, are issues with its silos. The plan had been to simply reuse the Minuteman’s Cold War-era silos, with some upgrades, to forego having to build costly new ones. But the Air Force has since concluded that those aging launch platforms are in no condition to support Sentinel into the late 2070s. Brand new silos are needed — and thus the total program cost of Sentinel has soared.

By putting Sentinel on road-mobile launchers, pulled by heavy trucks in military convoys operating in the sparsely-populated quarters of the US, the next-generation ICBM could be deployed quicker — and cheaper — than waiting for new silos to be constructed.

Road-mobile ICBMs could reduce the ballooning cost of new silos by creating a mixed force which includes mobile missile launchers and silo-based missiles. While a mobile option may have appeared too costly when Sentinel plans were set in 2014, the total cost is likely lower relative to the information we now have about the realistic cost of fixed silos. The economics of a next-generation ICBM have changed. Not only that, the rapid buildup of China’s nuclear force simply demands the United States move faster and adapt its plans.

Mobile launchers, which would be garrisoned in peace time, and dispersed in crisis to controlled driving circuits in the Great Plains, have the advantage of further complicating an adversary’s calculations and frustrating their targeting by denying them a fixed target to attack, as is the case with silo-based missiles. This gives an advantage to the United States and strengthens its ability to deter attack.

Now, some have argued that the solution is not to pursue Sentinel, but to simply extend the life of the Minuteman silos and missiles once again. The GAO, for its part, indicated the Air Force could keep those missiles viable through 2050. This option, as attractive as it may seem on paper, has been explored repeatedly and is deeply unwise.

The first Minuteman deployed in 1970, and plans initially called for their retirement in the 1980s. It is only through extraordinary skill that the Air Force has sustained the decades-old technology that keeps those missiles on alert in their silos, every hour of every day, deterring nuclear attacks on the US homeland.

The GAO notes that extending Minuteman deployments would raise the possibility of attrition and age-related failure. This should come as no surprise. Former Strategic Command chief Adm. (Ret.) Charles Richard has stated that given its aging technology and basing infrastructure, Minuteman can’t be sustained indefinitely. The missiles’ casing and electronic subcomponents suffer wear and tear. And their concrete silo shelters and launch command centers show signs of decay, as some of these structures date back to the 1960s.

China is rapidly building up its nuclear weapons and Russia routinely engages in nuclear blackmail. Both are challenging the United States and threatening US treaty allies. For the ultimate guarantee of US survival against the possibility — however unlikely — of a nuclear strike against the homeland, the United States must maintain an ICBM force able to guarantee to any would-be attacker that it will be on the receiving end of catastrophic destruction.

Fielding Sentinel is the only prudent path forward. Make no mistake, it will be costly. But the security of the United States cannot afford to go without one. The United States can adapt, go faster and cheaper, and ensure it has the most reliable and effective ICBM force.

US officials can ensure that continued cost-overruns don’t lead to delays and a diminished ICBM force in the long run by empowering decision makers to cut through bureaucratic hurdles and by deploying Sentinel on road-mobile launchers.

Kyle Balzer is a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Rebeccah L. Heinrichs is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and served as a member of the 2023 Strategic Posture Commission, and Robert Peters is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security.

The Break Out: The highs of AFA and a Trump sartorial mystery [VIDEO]

This time on The Weekly Break Out Editor-in-Chief Aaron Mehta and Deputy Editor Lee Ferran fondly remember lask week’s AFA, hitting highlights from senior leadership changes to CCA clues.

Then they dive into a topic usually foreign to the show: fashion. At least, they’re talking about a lapel pin worn by President Donald Trump during a key meeting that week that might mean more than meets the eye (or not).

Be sure to sign up for our newsletter below to get The Weekly Break Out in your inbox.

hbspt.forms.create({ portalId: '2097098', formId: '572d65c9-320c-4f86-86a9-7b1af51cec00', target: '#hubspot-form-572d65c9-320c-4f86-86a9-7b1af51cec00', });

Amid embargoes, how independent can Israel’s defense industry be?

JERUSALEM — Facing foreign arms embargoes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently called for Israel to become far more self-reliant on homegrown defense products, describing his vision of the Middle Eastern power as a “super Sparta.”

But analysts told Breaking Defense that while it would be in Jerusalem’s interest to build more defense components and platforms at home, there are clear limits to what the defense industry is capable of on its own.

“Israel will not be totally independent,” Yaakov Amidror, who served as Netanyahu’s national security advisor between 2011 and 2013, told Breaking Defense. “It will not produce F-35s or submarines, for example, but Israel can be and should be less dependent on others regarding munitions and spare parts.”

In a speech on Sept. 15 Netanyahu acknowledged that economically Israel is “in a sort of isolation.”

“I am a believer in the free market, but we may find ourselves in a situation where our arms industries are blocked. We will need to develop arms industries here — not only research and development, but also the ability to produce what we need,” he said. After the comments sparked a vocal backlash, Netanyahu clarified that the defense industry was already “soaring,” but reiterated Israel needed to “achieve security independence.” (Days later, scores of delegates walked out ahead of Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly.)

Eran Lerman, a former deputy for foreign policy and international affairs at the national security council in the Israeli prime minister’s office, noted “there is a reason Netanyahu quickly walked back his earlier comment about becoming generally self-reliant — it simply cannot work in an economy fully geared towards export.” Lerman, who is vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, added that in more narrow terms relating to military supplies, “it does make sense to generate alternatives to the occasionally problematic chains of supply. But to wrap this in the red battle cloak of Sparta was an obvious mistake.”

Yaakov Katz, author of Shadow Strike, a book about Israel’s raid on Syria’s nuclear program and a fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, said that Netanyahu was right regarding Israel’s need to be more self-reliant in terms of weapons production. However, he agreed with Amidror that when it comes to major platforms like warplanes, it won’t be possible. 

“Take the Air Force as an example: All of the IAF’s aircraft except the trainer aircraft are US made. [These] are F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and so much more. Without spare parts, maintenance and more from the US, Israel will not be able to fly and hence, will not be able to fight. So while independence is important, so is ensuring we have bipartisan support in the US for decades to come.” 

While some European nations have announced embargoes on arms sales to Israel over its conduct in Gaza, Washington has maintained its close relationship with Jerusalem, even if President Donald Trump appears at times to have been frustrated with Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister concluded a visit to the White House on Monday, after which Trump presented a 20-point plan to end the conflict in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense firms have been logging record export sales, despite the ongoing war against Hamas. Israel has also been plowing funds into local defense contracts, which Israel’s Ministry of Defense says is part of an attempt to invest in what are called “blue and white” local industries to create “manufacturing independence.” This has included everything from manufacturing munitions to repairing and producing tanks.

One way Israel is responding to the new self-reliance drive is to establish a National Armament Council. Israel Ministry of Defense Director General Amir Baram said on Sept. 15 that the new council would “accelerate our preparedness for third- and fourth-tier threats dramatically. This comprehensive body will unite all stakeholders around a unified table: the defense establishment, Treasury officials, the Ministry’s R&D directorate, defense industries, and additional relevant entities.”

Speaking that day — a day before Netanyahu’s controversial comments — about Israel’s outlook, Baram noted that “security and economic strength are inextricably linked, particularly in Israel. Fundamental security is a cornerstone of national security — alongside robust economics, social cohesion, and cutting-edge technology.”